AUTHORS*
J. Scott Tiedemann
Brian R. Dierzé
Brennon B. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. 5th 662 (2022)
Brennon B. was a 14-year-old special education student in the West Contra Costa Unified School District. Brennon alleged that he was sexually assaulted by other students and by a school district staff member. After Brennon's initial complaints, the District agreed to assign a supervisor to accompany Brennon to the restroom and on the school bus but failed to do so, and he was assaulted again.
Brennon sued the District alleging disability discrimination under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Unruh Civil Act states that people with disabilities and other protected groups are entitled to equal treatment and services "in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." The Act also provides enhanced remedies for those who win their cases, including penalties and attorney fees. The trial court sustained the District's motion to dismiss the case, finding that the District was not a "business establishment" subject to the Act. Brennon petitioned for a writ of mandate to the California Court of Appeal. The appellate court examined the legislative history of the Unruh Act and California Supreme Court decisions, and found that public school districts were not business establishments under the Unruh Act.
On appeal, the California Supreme Court examined the language of the Act, its purpose and history, and prior case law. The Court unanimously held that public schools are not subject to the Act. The Court noted "Educating students is a task that is fundamentally different from what could fairly be described as 'regular business transactions." The Court concluded that public schools, as governmental entities that provide free and public education, are not "business establishments" within the meaning of the Act. When acting in their core educational capacity, public school districts do not perform "customary business functions," nor is their overall function to protect and enhance economic value.
Houston Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Wilson, 142 S. Ct. 1253 (2022)
In 2013, David Wilson was elected to the Board of Trustees of the Houston Community College System (HCC). Wilson often disagreed with the Board about the best interests of HCC and brought multiple lawsuits challenging the Board's actions. By 2016, Wilson's escalating disagreements led the Board to publicly reprimand him. At a 2018 meeting, the Board adopted a resolution "censuring" Wilson. The Board also imposed penalties which made Wilson ineligible for Board officer positions during 2018.
Wilson claimed that this censure violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. After multiple appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the verbal "reprimand against an elected official for speech addressing a matter of public concern is an actionable First Amendment claim." HCC appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On appeal, Wilson reiterated his claim that the verbal censure he received was a retaliatory action after the fact for his protected speech. Generally, government officials are not permitted to take...
